Methods for quick consensus estimation

Autores
Goloboff, Pablo Augusto; Farris, James S.
Año de publicación
2001
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
A method that allows estimating consensus trees without exhaustive searches is described. The method consists of comparing the results of different independent superficial searches. The results of the searches are then summarized through a majority rule, consensed with the strict consensus tree of the best trees found overall. This assumes that to the extent that a group is recovered by most searches, it is more likely to be actually supported by the data. The effect of different parameters on the accuracy and reliability of the results is discussed. Increasing the cutoff frequency decreases the number of spurious groups, although it also decreases the number of correct nodes recovered. Collapsing trees during swapping reduces the number of spurious groups without significantly decreasing the number of correct nodes recovered. A way to collapse branches considering suboptimal trees is described, which can be extended as a measure of relative support for groups; the relative support is based on the Bremer support, but takes into account relative amounts of favorable and contradictory evidence. More exhaustive searches increase the number of correct nodes recovered, but leave unaffected (or increase) the number of spurious groups. Within some limits, the number of replications does not strongly affect the accuracy of the results, so that using relatively small numbers of replications normally suffices to produce a reliable estimation. © The Willi Hennig Society.
Fil: Goloboff, Pablo Augusto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Tucuman. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo. Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina
Fil: Farris, James S.. Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet; Suecia
Materia
Consensus Trees
Independent Superficial Searches
Majority Rule
Accuracy And Realiability
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/79109
Acceder
id CONICETDig_2a36eb01d74429c5b8707dfe97e3ddff
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/79109
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Methods for quick consensus estimationGoloboff, Pablo AugustoFarris, James S.Consensus TreesIndependent Superficial SearchesMajority RuleAccuracy And Realiabilityhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1A method that allows estimating consensus trees without exhaustive searches is described. The method consists of comparing the results of different independent superficial searches. The results of the searches are then summarized through a majority rule, consensed with the strict consensus tree of the best trees found overall. This assumes that to the extent that a group is recovered by most searches, it is more likely to be actually supported by the data. The effect of different parameters on the accuracy and reliability of the results is discussed. Increasing the cutoff frequency decreases the number of spurious groups, although it also decreases the number of correct nodes recovered. Collapsing trees during swapping reduces the number of spurious groups without significantly decreasing the number of correct nodes recovered. A way to collapse branches considering suboptimal trees is described, which can be extended as a measure of relative support for groups; the relative support is based on the Bremer support, but takes into account relative amounts of favorable and contradictory evidence. More exhaustive searches increase the number of correct nodes recovered, but leave unaffected (or increase) the number of spurious groups. Within some limits, the number of replications does not strongly affect the accuracy of the results, so that using relatively small numbers of replications normally suffices to produce a reliable estimation. © The Willi Hennig Society.Fil: Goloboff, Pablo Augusto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Tucuman. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo. Instituto Miguel Lillo; ArgentinaFil: Farris, James S.. Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet; SueciaWiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc2001-12info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/79109Goloboff, Pablo Augusto; Farris, James S.; Methods for quick consensus estimation; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Cladistics; 17; 1; 12-2001; 26-340748-3007CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1006/clad.2000.0156info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2001.tb00102.xinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-03T10:01:37Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/79109instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-03 10:01:37.876CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Methods for quick consensus estimation
title Methods for quick consensus estimation
spellingShingle Methods for quick consensus estimation
Goloboff, Pablo Augusto
Consensus Trees
Independent Superficial Searches
Majority Rule
Accuracy And Realiability
title_short Methods for quick consensus estimation
title_full Methods for quick consensus estimation
title_fullStr Methods for quick consensus estimation
title_full_unstemmed Methods for quick consensus estimation
title_sort Methods for quick consensus estimation
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Goloboff, Pablo Augusto
Farris, James S.
author Goloboff, Pablo Augusto
author_facet Goloboff, Pablo Augusto
Farris, James S.
author_role author
author2 Farris, James S.
author2_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Consensus Trees
Independent Superficial Searches
Majority Rule
Accuracy And Realiability
topic Consensus Trees
Independent Superficial Searches
Majority Rule
Accuracy And Realiability
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv A method that allows estimating consensus trees without exhaustive searches is described. The method consists of comparing the results of different independent superficial searches. The results of the searches are then summarized through a majority rule, consensed with the strict consensus tree of the best trees found overall. This assumes that to the extent that a group is recovered by most searches, it is more likely to be actually supported by the data. The effect of different parameters on the accuracy and reliability of the results is discussed. Increasing the cutoff frequency decreases the number of spurious groups, although it also decreases the number of correct nodes recovered. Collapsing trees during swapping reduces the number of spurious groups without significantly decreasing the number of correct nodes recovered. A way to collapse branches considering suboptimal trees is described, which can be extended as a measure of relative support for groups; the relative support is based on the Bremer support, but takes into account relative amounts of favorable and contradictory evidence. More exhaustive searches increase the number of correct nodes recovered, but leave unaffected (or increase) the number of spurious groups. Within some limits, the number of replications does not strongly affect the accuracy of the results, so that using relatively small numbers of replications normally suffices to produce a reliable estimation. © The Willi Hennig Society.
Fil: Goloboff, Pablo Augusto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Tucuman. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo. Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina
Fil: Farris, James S.. Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet; Suecia
description A method that allows estimating consensus trees without exhaustive searches is described. The method consists of comparing the results of different independent superficial searches. The results of the searches are then summarized through a majority rule, consensed with the strict consensus tree of the best trees found overall. This assumes that to the extent that a group is recovered by most searches, it is more likely to be actually supported by the data. The effect of different parameters on the accuracy and reliability of the results is discussed. Increasing the cutoff frequency decreases the number of spurious groups, although it also decreases the number of correct nodes recovered. Collapsing trees during swapping reduces the number of spurious groups without significantly decreasing the number of correct nodes recovered. A way to collapse branches considering suboptimal trees is described, which can be extended as a measure of relative support for groups; the relative support is based on the Bremer support, but takes into account relative amounts of favorable and contradictory evidence. More exhaustive searches increase the number of correct nodes recovered, but leave unaffected (or increase) the number of spurious groups. Within some limits, the number of replications does not strongly affect the accuracy of the results, so that using relatively small numbers of replications normally suffices to produce a reliable estimation. © The Willi Hennig Society.
publishDate 2001
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2001-12
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/79109
Goloboff, Pablo Augusto; Farris, James S.; Methods for quick consensus estimation; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Cladistics; 17; 1; 12-2001; 26-34
0748-3007
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/79109
identifier_str_mv Goloboff, Pablo Augusto; Farris, James S.; Methods for quick consensus estimation; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Cladistics; 17; 1; 12-2001; 26-34
0748-3007
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1006/clad.2000.0156
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2001.tb00102.x
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1842269707777867776
score 13.13397

Publicaciones similares